Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Toronto, Ont.

Recent Profile Visitors

17,927 profile views
  1. What makes you think that it happened while the train was stored at Greenwood? The fact that Stuart Green talked about the fact that the train had no cameras and was taken out of service implied to me that it happened inside while the train was in service. It's fucking vile either way, but with the lower passenger numbers its likely easily done during the day at the ends of the lines. Dan
  2. I don't think that you're likely to find much historical information for such a small operation online, to be honest. Your best bet will be to find a Canadian Trackside Guide of that era. The more recent editions are not likely to have retained and carried over the information for that unit from issue-to-issue. Dan
  3. Metrolinx owns the new terminal currently being completed. They do not own Bay Street - the TTC does. I know this should be obvious, but there are very, very serious systemic issues and disagreements between the two agencies. They seldom see eye-to-eye, and just because one figures or decrees that something should be a fait accompli does not necessarily make it so. The TTC has quietly been trying to sell off the Elizabeth Terminal for almost 20 years. They haven't been able to yet. How is that relevant if the discussions involved have been happening for a decade or more? Do those discussions suddenly become irrelevant? Again - the TTC has been trying to move the Elizabeth Terminal for many, many years, and hasn't been able to as yet. There are a number of surface parking lots in the vicinity of the terminal that have been around for almost as long as I have been alive. Don't assume that they won't have any trouble finding a buyer, because apparently others have been trying for many years with no luck. Dan
  4. Nitpick - the portion of the siding where the cars are loaded and unloaded is still on TTC property. It was off of the TTC rails on that Friday, but technically still remained on the property until the flatcar that the car sits on was taken away. Dan
  5. You realize that report was presented over 3 years ago, right? And what has happened since? Eventually, yes. Once the right bid for the property comes up, the TTC will sell the property and (maybe) close the facility. (Or maybe not. That will be up to the new owners of the property.) But that hasn't happened yet. And despite them trying to sell off 130 Elizabeth for several years now, there have been no takers. Dan
  6. There is a hell of a lot more to do than just testing. Although to their credit, the opening of the facility is now in sight. I'm not sure who you have been talking to, but there is no indication at this point that any of those agencies will be moving from the Toronto Coach Terminal anytime soon. Dan
  7. I don't recall the trip valves being implicated at all for either of those. The TTC's own reports never mentioned them. And while it was after Russell Hill, I don't think it was quite RIGHT after Russell Hill, but maybe about a year or two later. I seem to recall that the issues with the H5s were due to a lack of parts, be it main controllers or something within the control system. They ended up having to cannibalize almost half of the fleet, so what they would do is make sure that one end of the pair was in good nick, and then pull the other end apart for spares, or to keep another pair running. This lasted for about a year, and happened to coincide with the mid-life rebuild that they were going through at the time. Generally once a pair came out of rebuild, both ends were usable. And from what I recall, the H1s were configured in basically the same way, with one cab usable and the other not. As for why, I just can't remember anymore. Dan
  8. Thankfully, I think it's even better than that. A lot of the work that was done was at the outer ends of the system where problems such as undervoltage and stray grounds were constant and recurring problems. While they weren't really a major issue with the PCCs or even the CLRVs to any great degree, undervoltage situations were perceived to be a major potential issue with the computer systems of the Flexities - thus, they fixed them. (My understanding is that while undervoltages can be bad for computers that they can be resolved through careful planning in a system as complex as a streetcar, although I will certainly defer to the experts on this.) I'm pretty sure that I saved a copy of it on my computer. If I can dig it up, I'll gladly attach it to a post. Dan
  9. This is a regularly occurring rumour/story. And it's bullshit. The cars run just fine on trolley poles with no performance degradation. That was a problem many years ago, but it was resolved several years back - they have upgraded a couple of the substations, added 2 more, and upgraded the feeds. There was an internal TTC report from about 15 years ago where they tested an ALRV that had been modified to pull the same number of amps as was expected from a Flexity. And during the testing, the draw was high enough to turn the shoe red. I've not been able to get this report, but the engineer leading the project (who I believe is no longer with the TTC) also made a presentation to one of the various engineering societies where he showed the TTC's findings, including relating the report of the red-hot shoe. The problem is that they used a CLRV shoe (3.5" long) versus an ALRV shoe (6" long) for the testing, so of course there will be resistance heating and draw issues. The Flexities are using a modified version of the ALRV shoes and have shown no adverse affects. Dan
  10. This is correct. The M- and H- cars could all operate together, and in any orientation. Not only did the G- cars use a different physical coupler design that prevented them being coupled to the other equipment, but it was handed for coupling between other G- cars - an even car could only couple to an odd car. I believe that there was a coupler adaptor that could be used in the event of an emergency, but it was for no more than that. All that said - he's also right about the other points. As important a moment in not only the TTC's history, but also the City of Toronto's history is September of next year, let's try and get through what's left of this year first. There needs to be a TTC left if we're to celebrate it. Dan
  11. There are a whole host of reasons why the shape and profile of power cars doesn't match that of the cars, and while none of those reasons will appease those who's OCD/sensibilities are offended (mine included) by the mismatch, that particular reason is not one of them. The upcoming order from SNCF for new Duplexes will feature power cars that look like these ones, but they are not the same as the ones built in the US, not by a long shot. Dan
  12. Yes and no. No because in its current configuration, it would force wider headways on both halves of the current line. And rebuilding the station to enable efficient turn-back operations would likely cost in the realm of a new line downtown. But yes because the ridership levels are different between the two halves, and it would be as logical a place as any to split the services. Dan
  13. You may want to read the footer of his message to get a bit more perspective on his response. Dan
  14. Gary has is right. The train configuration itself will be a "hybrid". Sleepers, lounges and the diner will continue to be Renaissance equipment, along with the baggage/transition cars. The coaches will be Budd cars - which have reverse-able seats. Admittedly, what I've been told doesn't seem to say anything about a dome, but I don't necessarily see that as a deal-breaker yet. Dan
  • Create New...